How Many "State" 2dis Have You Been On? Clinched?

[CoreySamson]

In MN, the legal definition of I-35 follows I-35E, so I have considered 35/35E to be one route and 35W to be another route.

Interesting... that throws a wrench into my definition:

Just FYI:

As for clinching purposes and marking travels, I regard suffixed routes as entirely separate from the route they were conceived from. Hence, in the case of I-35, I regard it as 5 separate routes: I-35 (in 3 discontiguous sections), I-35W (Fort Worth), I-35E (Dallas), I-35W (Minneapolis), and I-35E (St. Paul). I-69 would be 4 routes: I-69 (even though it is fragmented), I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W. This goes for US routes, too. Hence, if I went on the 3 discontinuous sections of I-35 and none of the suffixed routes, then I would consider it clinched (because I have been on all of the road marked or internally listed as I-35).

So this can be interpreted three different ways... either (1) I can regard it as I-35E because that's what the signs say or (2) I can regard it as I-35 because that is how it is internally designated or (3) I can regard it as both I-35 and I-35E because it is signed as one and designated as the other and therefore overlap (or is this complete pedantry?).

So do you have to clinch both the local and express lanes of a highway with that setup?

I personally count local and express lanes differently if they are separate from the main lanes. If it's an HOV lane or anything not separated by pylons or a Jersey barrier (or anything like that), then it's one route, not two.

[1995hoo]

Let's put it this way. I'm also not claiming a clinch of I-69 unless I get W, C, and (both) E.

I'm intrigued to know if the others in your camp will take this same stance on 69.

You're saying it would be nice to know?

Yes.  The discussion about how to handle the E/W branches of I-35 intrigues me.  And I had already the "all branches" crowd would handle the E/W/C branches of I-69.  So, when |JayhawkCO| specified his position on the matter, I'm intrigued to know if the others will hold the same position.  It's quite the intriguing question.

I was referring to two specific characters in your post.

* whoosh *

...still over my head, I'm afraid...

See boldface. JayhawkCO got the joke.

[kphoger]

I still don't get it.

A quick Google search tells me that this is some sort of meme-slash-Twitter thing?

Whatevs.

[CtrlAltDel]

So do you have to clinch both the local and express lanes of a highway with that setup?

If they're in the same right of way, no.

I still don't get it.

A quick Google search tells me that this is some sort of meme-slash-Twitter thing?

Whatevs.

A gag on South Park (and also real life, I suppose, depending on your friend group) is for someone to respond "Nice," whenever the number "69" comes up due to a presumed affinity for the sexual position.

[Scott5114]

Let's put it this way. I'm also not claiming a clinch of I-69 unless I get W, C, and (both) E.

Do you also have to clinch the section of I-94 that carries an unsigned branch of unsuffixed 69? If you're going to use incompetent numbering schemes imposed by lawmakers as basis for determining what is or isn't a clinch, it would be logically consistent to require that section of I-94 as well.

For routes that split and rejoin, such as the two I-35 splits, if there's an obvious continuity along one of them, go with that. In both the Texas and Minnesota splits, exit number and mileage continuity is maintained along I-35E, so for clinching purposes I would consider those branches part of I-35 and necessary to clinch as a result. Both I-35Ws are mileposted and exit-numbered like 3dis and as such should be treated as independent routes.

How would you handle OK-3? Splits and rejoins, but there is no milepost continuity on either route due to the control-section mileposting method used by ODOT. (For what it's worth, the original route of 3 followed the longer 3E branch, but there's no indication of that on the road, of course.)

[kphoger]

A gag on South Park (and also real life, I suppose, depending on your friend group) is for someone to respond "Nice," whenever the number "69" comes up due to a presumed affinity for the sexual position.

Yeah, that's basically what I gathered from my quick Google search.  Never heard of it till today.

[JayhawkCO]

Let's put it this way. I'm also not claiming a clinch of I-69 unless I get W, C, and (both) E.

Do you also have to clinch the section of I-94 that carries an unsigned branch of unsuffixed 69? If you're going to use incompetent numbering schemes imposed by lawmakers as basis for determining what is or isn't a clinch, it would be logically consistent to require that section of I-94 as well.

Well, I have that part clinched, so yes.

[epzik8]

I-4: FL
I-5: WA
I-15: UT, ID
I-20: SC
I-24: TN
I-26: NC, SC
I-29: MO, IA, SD
I-35: MO
I-40: AR, TN, NC
I-44: OK, MO
I-49: AR (as I-540), MO (as US 71)
I-55: MS, TN, AR, MO, IL
I-64: KY, WV, VA
I-65: TN, KY, IN
I-66: VA, DC
I-68: WV, MD
I-70: UT, CO, KS, MO, IL, IN, OH, WV, PA, MD
I-71: OH
I-74: NC
I-75: KY
I-76E: OH, PA, NJ
I-77: VA, WV
I-78: PA, NJ
I-79: WV, PA
I-80: UT, IA, OH, PA
I-81: TN, VA, WV, MD, PA
I-83: MD, PA
I-84W: UT
I-84E: PA, NY, CT, MA
I-85: VA
I-86E: PA, NY
I-87N: NY
I-90: MT, WY, SD, PA, NY
I-91: CT, MA, VT
I-93: NH
I-95: FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, DC, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, ME
I-97: MD
I-99: PA

[US 89]

For routes that split and rejoin, such as the two I-35 splits, if there's an obvious continuity along one of them, go with that. In both the Texas and Minnesota splits, exit number and mileage continuity is maintained along I-35E, so for clinching purposes I would consider those branches part of I-35 and necessary to clinch as a result. Both I-35Ws are mileposted and exit-numbered like 3dis and as such should be treated as independent routes.

How would you handle OK-3? Splits and rejoins, but there is no milepost continuity on either route due to the control-section mileposting method used by ODOT. (For what it's worth, the original route of 3 followed the longer 3E branch, but there's no indication of that on the road, of course.)

I would say OK-3E is the route to follow there, both because it is the original 3 and because it's geometrically the through route at both ends of the split. In the absence of clear objective criteria like mileposts, legal definitions, or exit numbers, it becomes much more of a case by case thing. I could accept an argument for "you must clinch 3E as if it's regular 3" or "you can ignore the split completely" - but not "you must clinch both".

[CtrlAltDel]

I'm three years older than you. 

[Crown Victoria]

Regarding the suffixed route debate:

What about I-95 in New Jersey? We have the matter of the Eastern and Western Spurs of the New Jersey Turnpike, both signed as I-95, but officially only the Eastern Spur carries the designation.

So, both spurs are signed as I-95. Must one clinch both spurs to fully clinch I-95 in New Jersey? Will clinching only the "official" route on the Eastern Spur suffice?

[JayhawkCO]

Regarding the suffixed route debate:

What about I-95 in New Jersey? We have the matter of the Eastern and Western Spurs of the New Jersey Turnpike, both signed as I-95, but officially only the Eastern Spur carries the designation.

So, both spurs are signed as I-95. Must one clinch both spurs to fully clinch I-95 in New Jersey? Will clinching only the "official" route on the Eastern Spur suffice?

I'm going to be consistent. Yes, you need to travel both to have fully clinched I-95.

[kphoger]

A gag on South Park (and also real life, I suppose, depending on your friend group) is for someone to respond "Nice," whenever the number "69" comes up due to a presumed affinity for the sexual position.

I'm three years older than you. 

Well, besides that, my parents enjoy watching South Park, and they're 70 years old.

[Charles2]

Bold numbers: entire routes I've clinched
Bold states: state segments I've clinched

4: FL
10: TX LA MS AL
12: LA
16: GA
20: TX LA MS AL GA SC
22: MS AL
24: IL KY TN (W) GA TN (E)
25: NM CO
26: SC NC TN
29: MO IA SD
30: TX AR
35: TX KS MO IA
37: TX
40: OK AR TN NC
44: MO
45: TX
57: IL
59: LA MS AL GA
64: MO IL IN KY WV VA
65: AL TN KY IN
70: KS MO IL OH WV PA
71: KY OH
74 (W): IA IL
75: FL GA TN KY OH MI
76 (W): CO
76 (E): PA
77: SC NC VA WV
79: WV PA
80: NE IA IL IN
81: TN VA WV MD PA NY
85: AL GA SC NC VA
88 (W): IL
90: SD IL IN PA NY
91: MA CT
94: IL IN
95: FL GA SC NC VA MD PA NJ NY CT

[averageroadgeek]

Okay, so I'm cheating because this is taking forever to figure out. Here are the only state segments I've clinched, counting these only took a lot less time:
I've clinched US 98 and US 166 completely.
US 1 in Maine
US 2 in New Hampshire, and that one mile in New York
US 5 in Massachusetts
All the US highway segments in DC (1, 29, 50)
The short segments of US 400 in Missouri and US 425 in Mississippi
And perhaps the most impressive, US 160 in New Mexico 
I'm extremely close to getting US 202 in Massachusetts, just missing the segment south of Westfield.

[webny99]

Okay, so I'm cheating because this is taking forever to figure out. Here are the only state segments I've clinched, counting these only took a lot less time:
I've clinched US 98 and US 166 completely.
US 1 in Maine
US 2 in New Hampshire, and that one mile in New York
US 5 in Massachusetts
All the US highway segments in DC (1, 29, 50)
The short segments of US 400 in Missouri and US 425 in Mississippi
And perhaps the most impressive, US 160 in New Mexico 
I'm extremely close to getting US 202 in Massachusetts, just missing the segment south of Westfield.

I think you may have meant this for the US highway thread... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31387.0

(And I agree it does take forever to figure out...I also cheated and listed clinched state segments only.  )

[kphoger]

I only charted my clinches too.  Doing the rest seemed like a waste of time to me.

OK, so was doing the clinches, but it was less of a waste.   

[Rothman]

So much waste.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Here's my list with the bolded states are the ones that I've either clinched fully or through a state:

I-4: FL
I-5: CA, WA
I-10: CA, AZ, NM, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL
I-12: LA
I-15: CA, NV, AZ, UT, MT
I-16: GA
I-17: AZ
I-19: AZ
I-20: TX, LA, MS, AL, GA
I-22: AL, MS
I-24: IL, KY, TN, GA
I-25: NM, CO, WY
I-26: TN, NC, SC
I-29: MO, IA, SD, ND
I-30: TX
I-35: TX, OK, KS, MO, IA, MN
I-37: TX
I-39: IL, WI
I-40: CA, AZ, NM, TX, OK, AR, TN, NC
I-41: IL, WI
I-43: WI
I-44: OK, MO
I-49: LA, AR, MO
I-55: LA, MS, TN, AR, MO, IL
I-57: IL, MO
I-59: LA, MS, AL, GA
I-64: MO, IL, IN, KY, WV, VA
I-65: AL, TN, KY, IN
I-68: WV, MD
I-69: KY, IN, MI
I-70: UT, CO, KS, MO, IL, IN, OH, WV, PA, MD
I-71: KY, OH
I-72: MO, IL
I-73: NC
I-74: IA, IL, IN, OH, NC
I-75: FL, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI
I-76 (west): CO, NE
I-76 (east): OH, PA, NJ
I-77: SC, NC, VA, WV, OH
I-78: PA, NJ, NY
I-79: WV, PA
I-80: UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IN, OH
I-81: TN, VA, PA
I-83: PA
I-84 (west): ID, UT
I-84 (east): CT, MA
I-85: GA, SC, NC
I-87: NC
I-87: NY
I-88 (west): IL
I-89: NH, VT
I-90: WA, ID, MT, WY, SD, MN, WI, IL, IN, OH, PA, NY, MA
I-91: CT, MA, VT
I-93: MA, NH, VT
I-94: ND, MN, WI, IL, IN, MI
I-95: FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, ME
I-96: MI
I-97: MD
I-PR1
I-PR2
I-PR3

[iowahighways]

Mine so far (clinches are in bold):
4: FL
5: CA
10: CA, LA, MS, AL, FL
12: LA
15: CA, NV, UT
20: GA
22: MS, AL
24: IL, KY, TN, GA
25: CO
26: SC
29: MO, IA, SD
35: KS, MO, IA, MN
35E (north): MN
35W (north): MN
39: IL, WI
40: AR, TN
41: IL, WI
43: WI
44: OK, MO
49: MO
55: LA, MS, TN, MO, IL
57: IL
64: MO, IL, IN, WV
65: AL, TN, KY
69: MS, KY, IN
70: UT, CO, KS, MO, IL, IN, OH
71: OH
72: MO, IL
74: IA, IL, IN, NC
75: FL, GA, TN
76 (west): CO, NE
77: SC, NC, VA, WV
80: NE, IA, IL, IN
81: VA
85: GA
88 (west): IL
90: SD, MN, WI, IL, IN
94: MN, WI, IL, IN, MI
95: FL, GA, SC, VA, MD, DE, PA
97: MD

[Highway63]

I copied the list in the first post, and then followed the bolding style. Strikethru= no travel. (I have quite a few "first exit past end only, to say I've been on it.") No AK, HI, or PR for me. * = traveled all or part before signed as interstate

2: TX
4: FL
5: CA, OR, WA
8: CA, AZ
10: CA, AZ, NM, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL
11: NV*
12: LA
14: TX*
15: CA, NV, AZ, UT, ID, MT
16: GA
17: AZ
19: AZ
20: TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC
22: MS*, AL*
24: IL, KY, TN, GA
25: NM, CO, WY
26: TN, NC, SC
27: TX (still four miles short on this, sigh)
29: MO, IA, SD, ND
30: TX, AR
35: TX, OK, KS, MO, IA, MN (and E/W splits)
37: TX
39: IL, WI
40: CA, AZ, NM, TX, OK, AR, TN, NC
41: WI
43: WI
44: TX, OK, MO
45: TX
49: LA, AR, MO (AR as I-549, MO/AR before Bella Vista bypass)
55: LA, MS, TN, AR, MO, IL
57: MO, IL
59: LA, MS, AL, GA
64: MO, IL, IN, KY, WV, VA
65: AL, TN, KY, IN
66: VA, DC
68: WV, MD
69: TX, MS, KY, IN, MI
70: UT, CO, KS, MO, IL, IN, OH, WV, PA, MD
71: KY, OH
72: MO, IL
73: NC
74: IA, IL, IN, OH, NC
75: FL, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI
76: CO, NE | OH, PA, NJ (note: Added NJ from original list)
77: SC, NC, VA, WV, OH
78: PA, NJ, NY
79: WV, PA
80: CA, NV, UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IN, OH, PA, NJ
81: TN, VA, WV, MD, PA, NY
82: WA, OR
83: MD, PA
84: OR, ID, UT | PA, NY, CT, MA
85: AL, GA, SC, NC, VA
86: ID | PA, NY
87: NC | NY
88: IL | NY
89: NH, VT
90: WA, ID, MT, WY, SD, MN, WI, IL, IN, OH, PA, NY, MA
91: CT, MA, VT
93: MA, NH, VT
94: MT, ND, MN, WI, IL, IN, MI
95: FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, DC, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, ME
96: MI
97: MD
99: PA, NY